I don't think those two things are in contradiction. They want you, if not dead, then at least subjugated in an inferior position to them... so that they can feel special about themselves. They want attention for proclaiming that desire and generally causing disruption... so that they can feel special about themselves. I think ObsessoMom hit the nail on the head with "narcissists". (Though from what I've seen, some of them seem more paranoid than anything, like they're genuinely afraid that somehow minorities are going to exterminate them. Like the guys in Charlottesville chanting "We will note be replaced by Jews!" Yeah you guys, that's right, you won't. That wasn't even a thing on the table. Why are you worried about it enough to go marching and chanting?)

Of course when they look like they're about to actually do something harmful to people like you (or me; I suspect we're on different kinds of shit lists, but they're none too friendly to people like me either) then we should actually do something to stop them, but when they're just making loud noises, paying attention to them is just giving them what they want.

Pfhorrest wrote:Like the guys in Charlottesville chanting "We will note be replaced by Jews!" Yeah you guys, that's right, you won't. That wasn't even a thing on the table. Why are you worried about it enough to go marching and chanting?

Nazism was never about placing Germans in control because Germans were "best", but because they were German. If another race found itself in control, they had to be eliminated in order for Germans to be the "master race". The fear they have is that white men will be replaced at the top of society, which makes them align nicely with Nazis.

Pfhorrest wrote:but when they're just making loud noises, paying attention to them is just giving them what they want.

Okay. Then what about when you don't pay attention to them, and popular media outlets *do*, and now there's no voices saying "hey these peoples' goals are kinda fucked up" in opposition? I'm not sure if prisoner's dilemma is exactly appropriate, but it's in the same neighborhood - "ignore them" only works if *everyone* ignores them. And let's be honest, that's not going to happen.

Or, well, "everyone" may be a little too strong...but "my friends and I are going to the *other* store today" does not a boycott make.

existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

I thought the suggestion wasn't just that we should each individually choose not to go to these events, but that there should be a general social norm of ignoring them. Like how "do not feed the trolls" is a thing on the internet: one person naively giving a troll the attention they want is enough to keep the ongoing trolling filling up the online venue, so everyone else chides such naive people for doing so, creating social pressure for everyone to ignore them.

That doesn't work perfectly on the internet, and I don't expect it to work perfectly in the real world either, but it'd be nice if the world at large generally looked at these people the way that someone giving a speech on why all kittens should be stomped on would be looked at: "hah what, some lunatic actually believes that shit?" Potentially disgust and justified outrage if it looks like they're actually going to do something about it, but so long as they're just talking crazy, we should look at them like crazy people not even worth engaging with, because that's exactly what they are, right up there with people who think alien conspirators from Atlantis did 9/11.

The larger downside to ignoring them is letting them build support unopposed. Confronting them at least puts some price (social and/or physical) on that support. Both will realistically still get media coverage, but I'm not sure how many people are being drawn to them BECAUSE of said coverage. If you support Nazis or even "just" the white supremecists, I've gotta believe it wasn't because you saw a protest on the news and thought "hey those DO seem like ideas I should support!"

I still think the best way to oppose them is to show up and humiliate them. Point at them, and laugh. Bring a boombox playing Yakety Sax, so everyone gets the joke. Crush them under the boots of pity and derision.

CorruptUser wrote:I still think the best way to oppose them is to show up and humiliate them. Point at them, and laugh. Bring a boombox playing Yakety Sax, so everyone gets the joke. Crush them under the boots of pity and derision.

Those Nazis don't act so tough when they got doxxed. We could keep doing that as a bandaid until Trump is out of office.

CorruptUser wrote:I still think the best way to oppose them is to show up and humiliate them. Point at them, and laugh. Bring a boombox playing Yakety Sax, so everyone gets the joke. Crush them under the boots of pity and derision.

Lately I've been wondering what's wrong with putting Nazis in concentration camps. Obviously I don't like the idea of people being put in concentration camps, but that's just my opinion. They seem to be all for it. So why not let them have the fascism they want while the rest of us live in a democracy? Seems like the ideal solution.

Mutex wrote:Lately I've been wondering what's wrong with putting Nazis in concentration camps. Obviously I don't like the idea of people being put in concentration camps, but that's just my opinion. They seem to be all for it. So why not let them have the fascism they want while the rest of us live in a democracy? Seems like the ideal solution.

In the case of Nazis who have actually committed violent crimes, those are called prisons and we already have them.

In the case of Nazis who are merely abusing the right of free speech, the problem is that then you have a government with the authority to put people in concentration camps due to their beliefs, and it's only a matter of time before that power is in the hands of someone like, say, Donald Trump.

Mutex wrote:Lately I've been wondering what's wrong with putting Nazis in concentration camps. Obviously I don't like the idea of people being put in concentration camps, but that's just my opinion. They seem to be all for it. So why not let them have the fascism they want while the rest of us live in a democracy? Seems like the ideal solution.

In the case of Nazis who have actually committed violent crimes, those are called prisons and we already have them.

In the case of Nazis who are merely abusing the right of free speech, the problem is that then you have a government with the authority to put people in concentration camps due to their beliefs, and it's only a matter of time before that power is in the hands of someone like, say, Donald Trump.

Their belief is that putting people in concentration camps is ok. It's just catering to different opinions. Obviously they don't get to decide which side of the wall they're on, but who in history ever has?

Mutex wrote: Obviously they don't get to decide which side of the wall they're on, but who in history ever has?

The ones on the other side of the wall.

If we put Nazis in concentration camps, we are saying it's ok to put people in concentration camps, and that the people in power get to decide who gets put there. If you don't already see this as a Bad Thing, then I don't know what else to say.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Mutex wrote: Obviously they don't get to decide which side of the wall they're on, but who in history ever has?

The ones on the other side of the wall.

If we put Nazis in concentration camps, we are saying it's ok to put people in concentration camps, and that the people in power get to decide who gets put there. If you don't already see this as a Bad Thing, then I don't know what else to say.

Jose

I'm just saying it's morally defensible to treat people the way they want to treat other people. I'm certainly not in favour of concentration camps. But Nazis are, so they're welcome to them. Why should I push my belief in democracy on them?

(Btw you're taking this not-very-serious suggestion a bit more seriously than I expected anyone to take it. I'm sure this idea doesn't work out at all. I just think it's just fun to see how far it can be defended.)

Mutex wrote:I wasn't sure which CU meant. But they're unlikely to have time to produce kids in the camp really, if you know much about concentration camps.

People have spent years in Concentration Camps. People have even been born in them. That includes deliberate Extermination Camps like Auschwitz (look up Tadeusz Sobolewicz and Angela Orosz), which might even be what you aiming at. But that's getting dark, even for this dark diversion.

Mutex wrote: Obviously they don't get to decide which side of the wall they're on, but who in history ever has?

The ones on the other side of the wall.

If we put Nazis in concentration camps, we are saying it's ok to put people in concentration camps, and that the people in power get to decide who gets put there. If you don't already see this as a Bad Thing, then I don't know what else to say.

Jose

We already do this to black people/minorities/drug war. It is a bad thing. Except it doesn't mean we shouldn't use prisons. You seem content to fight that injustice through the slow wheels of political change. I don't see how that would change if we added nazis into the list of "bad things".

CorruptUser wrote:I still think the best way to oppose them is to show up and humiliate them. Point at them, and laugh. Bring a boombox playing Yakety Sax, so everyone gets the joke. Crush them under the boots of pity and derision.

I like this idea.

Eh. I was listening to the radio on the way to work, to a radio show on GPB which covers social justice issues pretty regularly (On Second Thought, which is probably only aired in Georgia), and the host was interviewing a former white supremacist (as well as someone who studies cases where people have abandoned hate groups). When they were asked if humiliation, derision, and mockery were effective ways to change minds, they answered that the people who get involved in those kinds of things already feel pretty shitty about themselves. So, nothing is learned, nobody gets better, and their minds aren't changed.

It doesn't accomplish anything except making you feel better, but if that's what you want to do, there are obviously more constructive ways to go about it.

We shouldn't abuse prisons. As it turns out, we do, and that needs to change. But that's another issue.

sardia wrote:I don't see how that would change if we added nazis into the list of "bad things".

It would further justify abuse of prisons, making it harder to change the issue above. Further, the idea is that we sanction people based on what they did, not based on who they are, or who they like, or who they are like, or what they might do. This is a bedrock principle of a free democracy, and one of the big things that sets it apart from a dictatorship (benevolent or not).

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

It may not change the minds of the people being mocked, but how does it influence the opinions of people watching the whole thing go down, vs other alternatives? I think that's the intended aim here. Nobody thinks we're going to convince Nazis not to be Nazis. We just want to make sure that everybody else thinks poorly of them, and that they well know that fact so that they don't feel emboldened to act on their lunacy.

Pfhorrest wrote:It may not change the minds of the people being mocked, but how does it influence the opinions of people watching the whole thing go down, vs other alternatives? I think that's the intended aim here.

I think the answer to that question depends on who the bystanders think they have more in common with, in terms of the general shape of their lives.

We just want to make sure that everybody else thinks poorly of them, and that they well know that fact so that they don't feel emboldened to act on their lunacy.

If the root of people joining hate groups and embracing hateful ideologies is poor self-esteem, then perhaps telling them that others who may have come from very similar backgrounds are shit is counterproductive. Finding why people feel they and their lives are shit or going to shit and addressing these issues is a lot harder though.

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:When [Neo-Nazis] were asked if humiliation, derision, and mockery were effective ways to change minds, they answered that the people who get involved in those kinds of things already feel pretty shitty about themselves.

Of course they feel shitty about themselves; they joined the groups in order to feel better, and adhere to White Nationalism because it means they are superior just for being white without having to actually prove it by actually putting in the work to make themselves a better person, and adhere to conspiracy theories because it means that they understand something the vast majority of sheeple are too stupid to understand without actually having to put in the years of learning and training in order to actually know something the vast majority of people don't. The point of humiliation is that it deprives the Neo-Nazis of that sense of social status and power that they crave, removing the mental reward they get from being a member of hate groups, and reduces the addiction to hate.

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:If the root of people joining hate groups and embracing hateful ideologies is poor self-esteem, then perhaps telling them that others who may have come from very similar backgrounds are shit is counterproductive. Finding why people feel they and their lives are shit or going to shit and addressing these issues is a lot harder though.

I just want to be clear on this. Do you mean things like Hollywood constantly reinforcing the "dumb hick" stereotype? Because I will agree that really needs to go; just because they are white doesn't mean they aren't a victim of constant stereotypes and the like, with people in general developing unconscious biases against them as a result which causes a huge number of problems with regards to college admissions and job interviews, similar to the damage caused by the media constantly portraying black people as thugs, dealers, pimps and whores.

CorruptUser wrote:The point of humiliation is that it deprives the Neo-Nazis of that sense of social status and power that they crave, removing the mental reward they get from being a member of hate groups, and reduces the addiction to hate.

Okay. But does it work? People only really worry about social status and power among the people they encounter in life; anyone else is an abstraction.

I still suspect that the purpose of trying to shame and humiliate people who get into hate groups is the high obtained from shaming someone else.

I just want to be clear on this. Do you mean things like Hollywood constantly reinforcing the "dumb hick" stereotype? Because I will agree that really needs to go; just because they are white doesn't mean they aren't a victim of constant stereotypes and the like, with people in general developing unconscious biases against them as a result which causes a huge number of problems with regards to college admissions and job interviews, similar to the damage caused by the media constantly portraying black people as thugs, dealers, pimps and whores.

That's one good example. Another being the claim that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist or approves of racism, whether because Trump is one* or because actual open racists threw themselves behind him, or something else. I know people who have turned to conspiracy theories instead of considering the possibility.

ucim wrote:We shouldn't abuse prisons. As it turns out, we do, and that needs to change. But that's another issue.

It would further justify abuse of prisons, making it harder to change the issue above. Further, the idea is that we sanction people based on what they did, not based on who they are, or who they like, or who they are like, or what they might do. This is a bedrock principle of a free democracy, and one of the big things that sets it apart from a dictatorship (benevolent or not).Jose

It's hardly an abuse of the criminal justice system to criminalize and prioritize hate groups/nazis. Your belief in this principle is naive. It's only applied in the US in tiers; where the elites get full access to the principles of the constitution, while the underclass suffer the full might of the jack booted thugs. The ones in-between get to decide just how much to sacrifice if they want to fight for justice.

The process may be corrupt, but it's easier to redirect the cops instead of waiting for a revolution. Obama showed us how far we can get by managing the priorities of the Justice Department.

Edit: That was a little harsh, the institutions and Democratic processes of the US aren't actually that bad.

Flip it over. Would it work if the Nazis or conspiracy theorists humiliated us for (e.g.) being too stupid to see through the smokescreen and perceive the Real Truth that's out there if only we would Open Our Minds (but we don't have any minds to open, so it's useless trying to teach us)?

What actually happens when we run into such rhetoric? Why would they react any differently?

edit:

sardia wrote:The process may be corrupt, but it's easier to...

...take advantage of the corruption to advance our own agenda. Right. That will give us the respect we need as leaders of the free world.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

To be clear I completely agree with the sentiment some are expressing that the way to actually change the minds of people is to show genuine concern for their problems and do something about them (or to demonstrate, in a lived way, that the thing they think is the problem isn't, like people living and working alongside other people of different races/etc but otherwise the same as themselves makes those others seem less Other and not so scary anymore). To really have a world with no Nazis in it, we need a world where the people who would otherwise be Nazis, first of all, don't face big faceless systemic socioeconomic problems that call for some scapegoat to blame for them (by making such big faceless systemic socioeconomic problems go away for everyone), and secondly, have enough positive exposure to enough different kinds of people that none of them can be easily scapegoated as a group (because they've all got good friends who are black/Jewish/hispanic/whatever and facing the same problems as them, so clearly it's not the blacks/Jews/hispanics/whatever as a group who are to blame for those problems).

But until we achieve that utopia, and we still have Nazis already, we've got to do something to contain them. When it comes to actual violence, I think we're all in agreement that more violence as necessary is an appropriate containment measure. Throw people who try to hurt other people in jail, duh. But it's everything short of that that's the topic here. How do we socially discourage Nazis, delegitimize their ideology and slow its spread, and make sure they are not emboldened to violent action that we'll then have to respond to with violence? Preemptively apply violence by punching them in the street? Make fun of them? Ignore them? Knowing that whatever we do, it's not going to make them not Nazis. But what effect will it have on their further public actions, and on the reaction of the public to them?

Pfhorrest wrote:But until we achieve that utopia [...]How do we socially discourage Nazis, delegitimize their ideology and slow its spread, and make sure they are not emboldened to violent action that we'll then have to respond to with violence?

We do the things we did before, that worked. The Nazis came out under Trump. Yes, they were there before, but they were activated by his deliberate goading.

Don't goad them.

What were we doing before Trump? Who was the president before Trump? Step 1: Whatever they were doing, do that.

Yes, arguably it "set the stage". I don't think that's true, but I can't prove that it's not. In any case, it's a start. Which means that there must be a:Step 2: Reach out to them and find out where they hurt. Address that.

Problem is, there's no political gain for step 2. That is the problem that needs to be solved.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

But until we achieve that utopia, and we still have Nazis already, we've got to do something to contain them.

In the era prior to the unhinged democracy of the internet it was difficult for those groups to coalesce. There were limits to the exposure they could receive. You may now officially consider that era as being over. Say thank you, internet, soulless advertising companies, and the boards of those marvelous money machines, Google and Facebook. If your purpose is to stop the spread of the ideology, take away their revenue sources. It should be obvious that fake news and propaganda are making someone money(like Nazi's). I certainly could cushion my retirement with the money I could get peddling that bullshit. I could write it faster than it could be debunked. As long as your Nazi's have money, well there you are. See Ya.

morriswalters wrote:It should be obvious that fake news and propaganda are making someone money(like Nazi's).

No?

People could be pushing propaganda and fake news at a loss. Remember, JFK conspiracy theories and Moonhoaxers were funded by the Russians at first in order to sow the seeds of doubt about the integrity of the US government, to say nothing of their useful idiots throughout the media. It's not like the US is pure victim in this, we were doing pretty much the same to Russia.

ObsessoMom wrote:What these narcissists--and really, who would say "I was born inherently better than you, and therefore am naturally entitled to more privileges than you," except a narcissist?--want is attention, attention, attention, so that they can bring their vile message to a wider audience and invite more narcissists to join them.

What if decent people continued to condemn the statements and tactics of racists...but ignored their publicity stunts, thus refusing to give them attention-getting photos and videos of confrontations?

It seems counterintuitive, I know, not to counter-protest something so abhorrent. But there are other ways of not remaining silent. If there's no physical counter-protest, there's less drama, and therefore less publicity.

Theres a few major problems with this.

1) They can always ramp up their activity until they get attention from someone. They have resorted to direct violence when necessary, after all. When they don't feel like they're getting coverage, they tend to start burning down churches and killing people. Fighting them here and now ironically avoids further escalation, because they are and will continue to be willing to escalate unilaterally.

2) They will get attention even if there are no counter-protests - they'll just be given the opportunity to control the narrative, and argue their case unopposed. Any opposition, no matter the form it takes, will be seen as suitable recognition. The best opposition is one that makes the core of the media narrative primarily about the opposition and their arguments and only describes the narcissists in contrast and thus clearly reveals their horrible shape. That won't happen without an active opposition.

3) You are making the classic mistake of thinking trolls feed on attention and reaction to their victims. Which... it happens, sure, but it's not required. Trolls and monsters are more than capable of subsisting solely on attention and recognition by each other. They do not shrivel and shrink when people move out of their way and let them give each other the attention they want so badly unopposed. It just lets them grow - the classic circle-jerk of emotional validation that happens when you only encounter opinions that agree with your own (about how great it is to make those other people miserable, and whether they ARE miserable or not doesn't matter if there's no evidence to contradict the internal narrative and they can simply reassure each other its true). If we don't provide them with an enemy, they will simply construct one, so the strategy of ignoring them plain doesn't work.

ucim wrote:Flip it over. Would it work if the Nazis or conspiracy theorists humiliated us for (e.g.) being too stupid to see through the smokescreen and perceive the Real Truth that's out there if only we would Open Our Minds (but we don't have any minds to open, so it's useless trying to teach us)?

What actually happens when we run into such rhetoric? Why would they react any differently?

Historically, what happens is that the organization or ideology in question suddenly finds itself bereft of new recruitment opportunities, and either winnows itself down to incompetent die-hards that become hostile to the outside world and thus incapable of progress, or the affiliation attempts to change shape and mellow itself out to regain credibility. Instead, those would be recruits look elsewhere, since they want to feel powerful, not humiliated, and join different groups, shattering the momentum that was being built.

So I don't actually expect them to act differently, and that's a good thing?

For an obvious historical example of it working: Their very public humiliation in the media after a deep investigative report was one of the most serious blows ever dealt to the KKK, and having Superman make sure the humiliation and absurdity was delivered directly to people's living rooms helped a lot.

Pfhorrest wrote:Of course when they look like they're about to actually do something harmful to people like you (or me; I suspect we're on different kinds of shit lists, but they're none too friendly to people like me either) then we should actually ...

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:That's one good example. Another being the claim that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist or approves of racism, whether because Trump is one* or because actual open racists threw themselves behind him, or something else. I know people who have turned to conspiracy theories instead of considering the possibility.

* If so, I don't think he knows it.

Having given the matter some thought, I've chosen The Button as a way to answer that. Bear with me.

Clinton said 50% of Trump supporters were "in the basket of deplorables" or something very much like that. Big mistake. Inaccurate, probably. YMMV, as you may find 1% or 98% of your population deplorable, making that figure impossible either way. Anywhere there was a large group who all knew they all supported Trump not because of racial thigns but because of his promises to do something about their problems, though, she was in effect calling them deplorable for no good reason and they knew it, whereas Trump had scouts out collecting information about what was worrying people in the area and feeding him things he could promise to Do Something About. He didn't have a plan to Do Something About any of them, his promises were contradictory and he didn't give a damn about any of them, but they didn't know that. They were given a choice between a candidate who said he'd heard their concerns and one who'd dismissed their concerns and called them deplorable racists. Sure, some racists jumped out of the woodwork with "proud to be deplorable" t-shirts, but they were riding on a wave of "If wanting to do an honest job and earn a decent living for myself and my family and give my children a future worth living to see makes me deplorable, then I'm deplorable and proud of it." Bit of a fuck-up, there, H.

So, The Button? Well, the question came up here whether someone could support an openly racist policy without being a racist. You know The Button? There's a knock on the door, you answer it, a man in a suit presents you a box with a button on it and tells you that if you push it you'll get $1,000,000 and someone you've never met will die. That button. If you and your spouse answer the door together and he tells you you'll get $1,000,000 and someone neither of you has ever met will die, that's a little more reassuring for people into spotting technicalities. It's supposed to be a morality and consequences thing, I think, but I reckon a lot of people would smack that button right there and then, and some would ask whether it would do it again before pushing it a second time while others would just keep at it. I'd probably treat it like yellow notes in the guitar line for Eye of the Tiger (on the right here)* and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. If the man in the suit explained that The Button had a 91% chance of killing one of the poorest 10% of the people in your country 1% for each other decile and you, knowing you were in the 3rd decile, pushed it anyway, that's not necessarily racist. If he said it was 95.5% and 0.% and that the poorest 10% are 90% black and you went: "This thing kills n*****s? Why didn't you say that first? You just set that thing down on that table there, son. Honey, fetch my drumsticks!" Yeah, THAT would be racist. Supporting a policy that turns your children's future from "utterly hopeless" to "potentially decent with enough hard work" at the expense of total strangers, though, is just natural. Viewing Jews / Muslims / Blacks / Hispanics / Natives as the weeds in your vegetable patch? That's racist. Thinking your years of hard work shouldn't have come to nothing isn't.

*then pay people to clear eucalyptus off Madeira, giant hogweed off Britain, can toads from Australia and so on, to clean hospitals (every £10 I spend paying someone to do that is £100 the NHS doesn't have to spend on treating nosocomial infections), to pick up litter all over our national parks, to make and give out bat-boxes and bird-boxes and so on, sponsor square kilometres of rainforest, buy a desolate street in Middlesbrough or Doncaster, do it up really nicely and let Refuge rent those houses from me for £1 a month plus repair costs, give every child in the whole of Cambodia a brand-new mosquito net each, hire private investigators to put together dossiers on MPs, build a solar farm and desalination plant on the coast of Syria, maybe find a large area of land nobody's ruined yet and turn it into a year-round steampunk LARP site with resident NPCs, ...

Clinton's obvious aim, regarding the Basket, was to say that there were Trump supporters who she should not be ashamed trying to draw to her side (the ones not totally unreconstructable). It was in a speech to people on her side who she wanted to be prepared to welcome the less-yuckily opined fringes. They might think some less than socially acceptable things, but these were going to be the ones that weren't totally beyond redemption.

But it got spun by the opposition. "Hey, moderate Trumpites, you're being called Deplorable... You might as well abandon any thought of cautiously realigning as Clintonites and dig deeper instead!." Not so much a dog-whistle, but a misappropriated foghorn. And the ones who were really being called Deplorable, knew it, loved it and didn't care about continuing being Deplorable and more so... Like those who decided to pick up Hakenkreuz armbands as fully deliberate provocation.

Soupspoon wrote:Clinton's obvious aim, regarding the Basket, was to say that there were Trump supporters who she should not be ashamed trying to draw to her side (the ones not totally unreconstructable). It was in a speech to people on her side who she wanted to be prepared to welcome the less-yuckily opined fringes. They might think some less than socially acceptable things, but these were going to be the ones that weren't totally beyond redemption.

Oh, I don't oppose her saying that some Trump supporters were utterly deplorable. That would have been fine. To say that Trump had attracted the support of some horrifying people would have been fine. To say to the whole electorate that it was rather worrying to see someone running for President who was prefectly happy to be endorsed by the KKK when any decent person would take a KKK endorsement as a sign it was time to stop and reassess the heck out of their expressed and demonstrated positions would have been fine.

It was the "50%" part that was the cock-up, and she said it at least twice.

I don't recall, nor see any sign when I look for transcripts, that she ever said "50%". The words used were "…you could put half of Trump's supporters into (the basket)…", which is colloquially not tied to 50% so strictly. Especially with the "…some of (11 million website visitors/twitter followers/etc?) are irredeemable" grounding it as the minority partner of a rougher and unequal split.

I make no further excuses. Someone as experienced as Clinton (with the probably veteran speechwriting team behind her, as well) should perhaps have anticipated it going beyond thr partisan crowd and their jubilously supportive latching onto the language in positive ways. There should have probably been some idiot-testing of the intended words to try to eke out the more damaging interpretations. Every sane public speaker should have such checks going on (I exclude Trump both due to his mad-libbing and also his teflonesque approach to riding over all the multitude of lies, nonsense, meaninglesses, etc) and, if there was such a check then this clearly nutmegged the person(s) responsible.

But without "I am determined to be righteously insulted, and then to make others think they are being insulted" (a deplorable attitude in itself), not a modern thing hut definitely something that modern echo-chambers can make far more significant, it's barely more than a segment of an otherwise inarguable point being made. The equivalent Trump 'speech' would swamp (drain it!) the objective or anti-partisan listener with so many more things to nit-pick, so that the individual straws get virtually lost in the tornado of chaos.

Soupspoon wrote:But without "I am determined to be righteously insulted, and then to make others think they are being insulted" (a deplorable attitude in itself), not a modern thing but definitely something that modern echo-chambers can make far more significant, it's barely more than a segment of an otherwise inarguable point being made.

Quite.

Bob: Some people who advocate X are racist.Joe: Hey! I advocate X! ARE YOU CALLING ME RACIST?!Bob: Well... are you racist?Joe: No I'm not!!Bob: Well then I wasn't referring to you, was I.Joe: ...

Way back I almost considered the following as a tagline: "If something I say can be interpreted two ways - one of which is offensive - you can assume I meant the non-offensive way..."

Back then it mostly used to be trolls, but now that offence can be monetised it's gone pro... :/

LONDON (Reuters) - A man who developed a hatred of Muslims after watching a TV drama about child sex abuse involving British Pakistani men was found guilty on Thursday of ploughing a van into worshippers outside a north London mosque weeks later, killing one.

Darren Osborne, 48, who had not previously expressed far-right views, became obsessed with Muslims after viewing the BBC’s “Three Girls”, about events in Rochdale, northern England, where white girls were abused by peadophile gangs.

He then researched extreme right-wing figures and groups, which sent him into a spiral of wanting to carry out an attack, police said.

In a garbled handwritten note left in the van, Osborne described Muslim men as rapists, “feral” and “in-bred” and expressed his contempt for Muslim London mayor Sadiq Khan and socialist opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, whom he later told jurors he had wanted to kill on the day of his attack.

Early on June 18, Osborne left his home in Cardiff, Wales, in a heavy van he had rented the day before and drove to central London. His original plan was to attack a pro-Palestinian march and he told the court his intent was to target Corbyn, although Haydon said there was no evidence of any direct threat.

At Woolwich Crown Court on Thursday, Osborne was found guilty of murder and attempted murder, with police and prosecutors saying it was an act of terrorism. Haydon described him as “a devious, vile and hate-filled individual”.

He will be sentenced at the court on Friday.

Osborne, an unemployed father-of-four, had a history of violence, depression, drug and alcohol abuse and had served a two-year prison sentence for assault.

Someone (Martin, as in transcript posted elsewhere) read out the part about him being found guilty of murder and attempted murder like it was a surprise.I said: "Yeah, well, if you say 'I wanna kill as many Muslims as possible,' you're going to get charged with attempted murder." It seemed sort of obvious.Replies? Oh, I got replies."He just didn't kill enough.""He should get a medal.""He should get a knighthood."I looked at one of them and said: "You know Schindler's List was a documentary, not a suggestion, right?"He said: "He just got the wrong race."

I just thought I ought to share that, in case anyone's under the illusion that Britain is a (mostly) Nazi-free zone.